4/10/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly disease suffered by the employee and his work to lead a rational mind to conclude that his work may have contributed to the establishment or, at the very least, aggravation of any pre-existing condition he might have had.[46] This reasonable connection has not been convincingly refuted by respondents. On the contrary, respondents do not deny the functions performed by David on board M/T Raphael or the cargo transported by the tanker in which he was assigned. At best, respondents have cited contrary researches suggesting that the chemicals in crude oil do not induce the kind of disease contracted by David—a soft tissue sarcoma, which can supposedly occur to anybody regardless of the nature of their employment.[47] Furthermore, respondents harp on the alleged “opinion of the company physician confirming absence of work-relation”[48] that “explicitly stated that there is no documented exposure to previously cited etiology.”[49] A review of the documentary evidence submitted by parties will readily show that there is no such “opinion of the company physician confirming absence of work-relation,” much less an explicit statement that David had “no documented exposure” to the etiology cited by Dr. Peña in his letter to the company-designated physician, Dr. Lim. [50] There is only an imprecise and ambivalent medical opinion regarding the work- relation of the MFH/UPS suffered by David that can be construed in favor of the employee. With more reason, such construal in favor of David and the relation of his illness to the nature of his work must be sustained considering that the employers, through respondent OSG Manila, admitted that David had suffered a Grade I disability. Notably, respondents have not denied the authenticity and genuineness of the Certification dated June 28, 2007 wherein the admission was made.[51] Instead, respondents whimsically argue that the admission merely pertains to the gravity of the ailment suffered by David but not its nature. This hair-splitting argument presented by respondents, and accepted by the appellate court, does not persuade. It ignores the fact that employers do not have the business of certifying the gravity of an illness suffered by an employee unless it is in relation to the latter’s employment. Hence, the certification issued by OSG Manila regarding the classification/grading of David’s illness can only be taken as a strong validation of the relation between David’s illness and his employment as a seafarer with the respondents. It is significant to note that OSG Manila issued the June 28, 2007 Certification after the issuance of the letters/certifications regarding the possible etiology of David’s illness, where it was tacitly suggested by the MMC doctors that David’s illness could be workrelated provided there is a documented exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. It can be easily deduced, therefore, that the certification impliedly fills in the information required by Dr. Peña in his last letter to the company-designated physician regarding the nature of the work performed by David and his exposure to chemical carcinogens that could have led to his illness. After all, respondents, as David’s employers, have knowledge regarding the functions of a Third Officer on board a crude tanker and the nature of the cargo transported in their vessels. Without a doubt, the certification issued by OSG Manila encompasses not only the gravity of David’s illness but also its elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55191 7/12